Beware of modifications

City of Bradford v Pratt

Trade union officials and members should be aware of the pitfalls of using the modified (as opposed to the standard) grievance procedure, highlighted in the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case of City of Bradford v Pratt.

Basic facts

Mrs Pratt had worked as a cleaner for the Council from June 1986 to March 2005. On 15 July she wrote a statement of grievance, identifying an equal pay complaint, in compliance with the statutory dispute resolution requirements.

The Council wrote back at the end of August, offering to deal with her complaint under the modified grievance procedure (MGP), which only applies if the employee has already left their employment and which does not require the parties to meet.

Mrs Pratt agreed  and the Council subsequently wrote to her again in October 2005 asking for more details of her grievance and in particular about her comparators. She replied in November and the Council came back to her in December, stating that the "Daymen" whom she had identified as comparators did a very different job from her.

Employment tribunal

Later on 6 December 2005, she submitted an equal pay claim to an employment tribunal.  However, there was a stark difference between the claim she submitted to the tribunal (which argued that she was enititled to the benefit of a bonus scheme enjoyed by male manual workers), and the complaint she had set out to the Council (which was about inequality with the Daymen).

The Council said she was not entitled to bring a claim because she had not satisfied the requirements of the MGP which state that employees have to set out in writing “the grievance and the basis for it”. It argued that her letter of 15 July set out a grievance, but that she did not set out the basis for it until her letter in November.

The employment tribunal chair, in a pre-hearing review, said there was enough information in the July letter. It was not appropriate to suggest that the MGP had not been complied with just because the Council’s subsequent request for further details produced different information to that which they received in the eventual complaint.

Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)

The EAT, however, disagreed. It said that employees who have opted for the MGP must set out their account in reasonable detail, "not necessarily mentioning every detail but certainly informing the employer of the important matters which the employer should investigate and consider."

It added that "there will be other grievances where, in the nature of things, an employee may not have full access to the facts, but has formed a grievance based on a suspicion or set of suspicions that certain facts exist. Then it will suffice that the written statement identifies not only his grievance but, in reasonable detail, why he holds the suspicions he does. Detailed evidence (in the sense of the prepared statements which would be appropriate for a Tribunal hearing) is not required."

In Mrs Pratt’s case it agreed with the Council that the July letter set out her grievance, but not the basis for it which was only provided when she sent her November letter. She then identified the type of employee concerned, and her complaint that she was doing the same work as them while being paid less.

The Council was then able to, and did, provide a reasoned answer to that “basis” of complaint. It did not matter that Mrs Pratt had not identified a comparator by name, or set out precise details of grading or pay but the tribunal claim form she subsequently issued did not relate to the basis of grievance that she put forward in November.

As a result she had not satisfied the requirements of the MGP and therefore could not pursue her claim.